YOu can't win that way. Everybody will complain about re-training time. Hell the moz people had to duplicate the exact same keyboard shortcuts as IE in order to get people to use it.
Innovation is a damned if you do damned if you don't thing.
"hat's right. Having said that, I haven't seen that kind of comment for a while. "
The point of a comment like "open source zealots should...." is to call people who use linux zealots. It serves no purpose other then that. The astro turfers simply want to associate open source users, programmers and advocates as dangerous zealots who one day may flip out and plant a bomb in your office.
This simple tactic has worked wonderfully at slashdot. When a shill calls people who use linux zealots nobody even questions it. They may argue that linux is perfectly good for your grandma but strangely enough they won't challenge the zealot tag. MS has been very successful in that portion of their astro turfing campaign.
Which slashdot are you talking about? Not this one. In this one the highest rated comments are of the variety "I like open source but linux isn't ready for your grandma" and "open source zealots should realize you have to use the right tool for right job" variety of astro turfing and shilling. Well that and all the "slashdot is teh sux" posts like yours.
If you really want single minded kool aid drinkers you sould hang out at gotdotnet. There not only are you shouted down and berated if you say anything anti MS, pro java or pro open source they even delete your posts. That's one of a cult they have going there.
Bah the corporations know how to poison this well. Go to any kind of a rating site and you will see that over 90% of comments are positive. Why? Well It could be that people would be embarrased to tell everybody they just spent money on a piece of junk of course but more likely it's that the manufacturer is astro turfing. It's very easy for a company to pay somebody to work part time setting up user names and saying how great their product or service is.
You seem to take absolutists views while I take a more graduated view.
Yes the US is not a pure socialist state. It is also not a pure capitalist state. No state is purely one or the other they are all combining elements of socialism and capitalism.
The question is whether the US is more socialist then capitalist and the answer to that is yes if you look at the taxing and spending record of the state. The vast majority of the taxes collected go towards income redistribution (the means to a pure socialist state). Other countries may spend more or less on income redistrubution but there is no arguing that the US is more socialist then capitalist.
YOu have a totally different (and weird in my opinion) definition of socialism. To me and to most people income redistribution is the heard of socialims. I certainly don't know how you can possibly build a socialist state without income redistribution.
The US is a socialist state by the virtue of the fact that the vast majority of it's budget is used for income redistributing.
"Giving to the poor or the needy is not socialist."
Of course not. It's moral, good, and saintly but it's not socialist. It becomes socialist when the state does it by taxing you and then giving your money to the poor. State enforced giving to the poor is socialist.
"One can not be denied benifits is a socialist system"
One can not be denied social security, k-12 education or medicare. Of course there is age discrimination of sorts going on but that's all.
"Either you allow for personal property or you do not."
I don't see the world as being black and white. I see that most succesful countries (and all of the first world ones) are practising socialism to some degree or another.
"I repeat the united states is a Constitutional, Republican, Capitialist state."
I disagree with the capitalist part. We are more socialist then capitalist simply by the virtue of our spending patterns.
The Sun/iplanet ldap server has been bought by Red Hat and open sourced. You can find it here
"The disadvantage is that your Enterprise Directory is also your NOS, which can be a pain from a licensing perspective, if you want to store authentication-only users as well."
Other disadvantages include cost, vendor lock, increased maintenance, and inability to interoperate.
Finally I would also look at oracle, they too have a directory and an excellent groupware system which in many ways is superior to exchange.
Just be sure to include your long term costs when you are evaluating. you should calculate the costs of integration and upgrades too. MS products don't work well with other companies products and will inevitably cost you hundreds of man hours if you are ever presented with the problem of integrating non standard MS software with software from other vendors.
As far as admins go studies have shown that unix admins on average maintain more servers per admin then windows admins. You may be able to do with one unix admin as opposed to two windows admins.
windows machines as a rule run less services per machine then unix machines do. This means more servers, which means, more servers to patch, keep up to date, backup, and admin.
Finally the perenial problem of backups and bare metal recovery. This is trivial in unix but costs thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars for windows.
There is a lot to think about. Just saying I have used windows XP before so i can maintain a active directory/exchange environment is plain old stupid.
"First you say the US does not support socialist ideas, then you say that we are socialist by definition. "
The US is a socialist country. It's less socialist then europe but a socialist country nevertheless. Four the last few years the country is being run republicans. REpublicans agree with you that poverty is a self inflicted condition so when the storm hit they did not fulfill their socialist reponsibility to send aid and rescue people until there was an outrage. I hope that makes what I am saying more clear. We are a socialist country, we have laws on the books that dictate that the federal govt help dying poor people. This administration ignored those laws and went against the socialist principles of this country because they (like you) believe that it is the fault of the poor people that they are dying.
"Social security, Medicare, wellfare and other so called social programs are not socialist."
They are indeed socialist. They are at the core of income redistribution. THey take from those that have and give to those that need.
"They are discriminatory, and based on income and personal property which are capitalist ideas."
Nope, social security is not based on income and neither is medicaid. Neither is the prescription drug benefit. Welfare is though.
"Subsides are not socialist and our schools are not free, and those so called free schools do not compare to the quality of schools that are only available to the privilaged rich."
Subsidies are indeed socialist. They too are income redistribution. K-12 education is indeed free (or paid by the state) so it's a very socialist program. Sure there are private shcools that are better but those exist in more socialist countries too.
"Pure Capitalsm (which there are no examples of) "works", but it would be those not able to be deemed productive members of society would not survive."
Pure capitalism has been tried numerous times in the past. The wild west was pure capitalism, so was the thousands of years of history before modern societies were formed. They all morphed into socialism sooner or later because the people opressed under capitalism kept revolting and beheading the rich who had amassed all the wealth. Turns out socialism is good for the rich because it keeps the poor fed just enough to prevent them from revolting.
YOu misread my sarcasm. MS claims that their formats are all based on XML and are completely open. They are lying of course (actually anytime, anybody who works for MS says something they are probably lying).
Anyway that's a silly argument. Older versions of MS office can't open newer office docs either.
" Why even have split development? Most ppl who don't use the current OO aren't not using it b/c of some small bugs, but b/c it lacks major abilites like being able to competantly convert MS formats"
What you say? Don't you know that office formats are based on XML and are completely open? Anybody can read and write office formats.
"Obviously, you don't, which just goes to show that you simply aren't qualified to make statements about running Java on Debian."
No, it simply means you can't seem to be able make coherent english sentences. What are you bleathering on about exactly? I was able to install java on debian, so have thousands of other peopel. I know from personal experience that it's possible to install java on debian. So where does your claim that it's not possible to install java on debian come from?
"My point is simply this: given that fools like you were using Sun Java for "scalable enterprise apps" even back when (not so long ago) Sun Java was full of horrendous memory leaks and other bugs, it obviously doesn't matter for scalability what people do in the runtime."
"I don't know about RedHat or Mandrake, but Java does not run "fine" on Debian. You may or may not be able to install Sun Java on it right now, but you can't rely on it: any "apt-get upgrade" can end up breaking it, and it does."
I don't know what you are saying here. I have was able to install java on my debian box. Anybody who says it's not possible to install java on debian is lying outright.
"In case you hadn't noticed, Forture 500 companies use lots of garbage."
Ah this makes it all clear now. You should avoid anything used by fortune 500 companies. Say it once again so I can get another chuckle. Say "java does not scale but mono is proven to scale". Go ahead I dare ya.
"Except that there's no proof that mono itself will scale on those platforms and P4 and AMD64 aren't exactly lightweights these days."
But there is lots of proof the.NET will not scale on those platforms because it does not run on those platforms.
"YOu gotta be kidding me. In reality, there more many more companies supporting.NET development. Sure, Microsoft are the only ones that can do anything about the runtime but there are literally thousands of vendors of.NET components (most of whom only support.NET on windows)."
He was talking about the runtime, not components.
"Mono's VM, although continuously improving is not as stable as Microsoft's and their class library isn't either complete or, again, as stable as Microsft's."
I agree, furthermore it will never catch up. MS will make sure of that. If by some miracle mono does close the gap they will be sued and that will stop them in their tracks.
Mono just doesn't make sense to me. Not when you java already exists, runs on every platform mono runs on, has proven to scale to massive proportions, can run on the tiniest of devices, had great IDEs, and is already mature and baked.
It was a fools errand to try and reverse engineer.NET. Imagine if Miguel put all that work into a better JVM for linux.
When I was in high school we used to have these dorks who would always wear chevy T-Shirts and thought that they were the shit because they drove chevies. They looked down on people who drove fords. It never occured to them they were simply brainwashed by some corporation to provide free advertising for that corporation.
Apparently kids don't change. These days kids like you are brainwashed by Microsoft of provide free advertising for them.
How is that working out for you? Do you feel more powerful because you have aligned yourself with a powerful corporation?
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Exactly what are you getting at?
YOu can't win that way. Everybody will complain about re-training time. Hell the moz people had to duplicate the exact same keyboard shortcuts as IE in order to get people to use it.
Innovation is a damned if you do damned if you don't thing.
"hat's right. Having said that, I haven't seen that kind of comment for a while. "
The point of a comment like "open source zealots should...." is to call people who use linux zealots. It serves no purpose other then that. The astro turfers simply want to associate open source users, programmers and advocates as dangerous zealots who one day may flip out and plant a bomb in your office.
This simple tactic has worked wonderfully at slashdot. When a shill calls people who use linux zealots nobody even questions it. They may argue that linux is perfectly good for your grandma but strangely enough they won't challenge the zealot tag. MS has been very successful in that portion of their astro turfing campaign.
Which slashdot are you talking about? Not this one. In this one the highest rated comments are of the variety "I like open source but linux isn't ready for your grandma" and "open source zealots should realize you have to use the right tool for right job" variety of astro turfing and shilling. Well that and all the "slashdot is teh sux" posts like yours.
If you really want single minded kool aid drinkers you sould hang out at gotdotnet. There not only are you shouted down and berated if you say anything anti MS, pro java or pro open source they even delete your posts. That's one of a cult they have going there.
Bah the corporations know how to poison this well. Go to any kind of a rating site and you will see that over 90% of comments are positive. Why? Well It could be that people would be embarrased to tell everybody they just spent money on a piece of junk of course but more likely it's that the manufacturer is astro turfing. It's very easy for a company to pay somebody to work part time setting up user names and saying how great their product or service is.
Do you really think MS has that power? Imagine this...
MS pulls products from europe.
Europe repeals all MS patents and copyrights. All MS software becomed public domain in Europe.
MS shareholder crucify ballmer for making such a boneheaded decision.
You seem to take absolutists views while I take a more graduated view.
Yes the US is not a pure socialist state. It is also not a pure capitalist state. No state is purely one or the other they are all combining elements of socialism and capitalism.
The question is whether the US is more socialist then capitalist and the answer to that is yes if you look at the taxing and spending record of the state. The vast majority of the taxes collected go towards income redistribution (the means to a pure socialist state). Other countries may spend more or less on income redistrubution but there is no arguing that the US is more socialist then capitalist.
There is nothing wrong with this. To my mind the guy who kills a mass murderer is to be praised no matter if he is not a great a guy.
YOu have a totally different (and weird in my opinion) definition of socialism. To me and to most people income redistribution is the heard of socialims. I certainly don't know how you can possibly build a socialist state without income redistribution.
The US is a socialist state by the virtue of the fact that the vast majority of it's budget is used for income redistributing.
"Giving to the poor or the needy is not socialist."
Of course not. It's moral, good, and saintly but it's not socialist. It becomes socialist when the state does it by taxing you and then giving your money to the poor. State enforced giving to the poor is socialist.
"One can not be denied benifits is a socialist system"
One can not be denied social security, k-12 education or medicare. Of course there is age discrimination of sorts going on but that's all.
"Either you allow for personal property or you do not."
I don't see the world as being black and white. I see that most succesful countries (and all of the first world ones) are practising socialism to some degree or another.
"I repeat the united states is a Constitutional, Republican, Capitialist state."
I disagree with the capitalist part. We are more socialist then capitalist simply by the virtue of our spending patterns.
Nah, some MS shill modded you down so that your post won't be visible. The astro turfers are always very active when novell or oracle is mentioned.
The Sun/iplanet ldap server has been bought by Red Hat and open sourced. You can find it here
"The disadvantage is that your Enterprise Directory is also your NOS, which can be a pain from a licensing perspective, if you want to store authentication-only users as well."
Other disadvantages include cost, vendor lock, increased maintenance, and inability to interoperate.
Finally I would also look at oracle, they too have a directory and an excellent groupware system which in many ways is superior to exchange.
It's all still there, it's still viable, it's still better then what MS offers, it's still cheaper then MS.
Just because something doesn't get a lot of press doesn't mean it's gone.
Just be sure to include your long term costs when you are evaluating. you should calculate the costs of integration and upgrades too. MS products don't work well with other companies products and will inevitably cost you hundreds of man hours if you are ever presented with the problem of integrating non standard MS software with software from other vendors.
As far as admins go studies have shown that unix admins on average maintain more servers per admin then windows admins. You may be able to do with one unix admin as opposed to two windows admins.
windows machines as a rule run less services per machine then unix machines do. This means more servers, which means, more servers to patch, keep up to date, backup, and admin.
Finally the perenial problem of backups and bare metal recovery. This is trivial in unix but costs thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars for windows.
There is a lot to think about. Just saying I have used windows XP before so i can maintain a active directory/exchange environment is plain old stupid.
"First you say the US does not support socialist ideas, then you say that we are socialist by definition. "
The US is a socialist country. It's less socialist then europe but a socialist country nevertheless. Four the last few years the country is being run republicans. REpublicans agree with you that poverty is a self inflicted condition so when the storm hit they did not fulfill their socialist reponsibility to send aid and rescue people until there was an outrage. I hope that makes what I am saying more clear. We are a socialist country, we have laws on the books that dictate that the federal govt help dying poor people. This administration ignored those laws and went against the socialist principles of this country because they (like you) believe that it is the fault of the poor people that they are dying.
"Social security, Medicare, wellfare and other so called social programs are not socialist."
They are indeed socialist. They are at the core of income redistribution. THey take from those that have and give to those that need.
"They are discriminatory, and based on income and personal property which are capitalist ideas."
Nope, social security is not based on income and neither is medicaid. Neither is the prescription drug benefit. Welfare is though.
"Subsides are not socialist and our schools are not free, and those so called free schools do not compare to the quality of schools that are only available to the privilaged rich."
Subsidies are indeed socialist. They too are income redistribution. K-12 education is indeed free (or paid by the state) so it's a very socialist program. Sure there are private shcools that are better but those exist in more socialist countries too.
"Pure Capitalsm (which there are no examples of) "works", but it would be those not able to be deemed productive members of society would not survive."
Pure capitalism has been tried numerous times in the past. The wild west was pure capitalism, so was the thousands of years of history before modern societies were formed. They all morphed into socialism sooner or later because the people opressed under capitalism kept revolting and beheading the rich who had amassed all the wealth. Turns out socialism is good for the rich because it keeps the poor fed just enough to prevent them from revolting.
The end result is the same though. You have a program (office 2003) which will not display MS office documents people send you.
YOu misread my sarcasm. MS claims that their formats are all based on XML and are completely open. They are lying of course (actually anytime, anybody who works for MS says something they are probably lying).
Anyway that's a silly argument. Older versions of MS office can't open newer office docs either.
" Why even have split development? Most ppl who don't use the current OO aren't not using it b/c of some small bugs, but b/c it lacks major abilites like being able to competantly convert MS formats"
What you say? Don't you know that office formats are based on XML and are completely open? Anybody can read and write office formats.
Why resort to an anonymous posting when you are shilling?
"Obviously, you don't, which just goes to show that you simply aren't qualified to make statements about running Java on Debian."
No, it simply means you can't seem to be able make coherent english sentences. What are you bleathering on about exactly? I was able to install java on debian, so have thousands of other peopel. I know from personal experience that it's possible to install java on debian. So where does your claim that it's not possible to install java on debian come from?
"My point is simply this: given that fools like you were using Sun Java for "scalable enterprise apps" even back when (not so long ago) Sun Java was full of horrendous memory leaks and other bugs, it obviously doesn't matter for scalability what people do in the runtime."
Ah I see, you are an idiot.
So does java. What's your point?
yes he is saying that. Why? Most likely because he is a paid astro turfer or works for MS.
"I don't know about RedHat or Mandrake, but Java does not run "fine" on Debian. You may or may not be able to install Sun Java on it right now, but you can't rely on it: any "apt-get upgrade" can end up breaking it, and it does."
I don't know what you are saying here. I have was able to install java on my debian box. Anybody who says it's not possible to install java on debian is lying outright.
"In case you hadn't noticed, Forture 500 companies use lots of garbage."
Ah this makes it all clear now. You should avoid anything used by fortune 500 companies. Say it once again so I can get another chuckle. Say "java does not scale but mono is proven to scale". Go ahead I dare ya.
"Except that there's no proof that mono itself will scale on those platforms and P4 and AMD64 aren't exactly lightweights these days."
.NET will not scale on those platforms because it does not run on those platforms.
.NET development. Sure, Microsoft are the only ones that can do anything about the runtime but there are literally thousands of vendors of .NET components (most of whom only support .NET on windows)."
.NET. Imagine if Miguel put all that work into a better JVM for linux.
But there is lots of proof the
"YOu gotta be kidding me. In reality, there more many more companies supporting
He was talking about the runtime, not components.
"Mono's VM, although continuously improving is not as stable as Microsoft's and their class library isn't either complete or, again, as stable as Microsft's."
I agree, furthermore it will never catch up. MS will make sure of that. If by some miracle mono does close the gap they will be sued and that will stop them in their tracks.
Mono just doesn't make sense to me. Not when you java already exists, runs on every platform mono runs on, has proven to scale to massive proportions, can run on the tiniest of devices, had great IDEs, and is already mature and baked.
It was a fools errand to try and reverse engineer
When I was in high school we used to have these dorks who would always wear chevy T-Shirts and thought that they were the shit because they drove chevies. They looked down on people who drove fords. It never occured to them they were simply brainwashed by some corporation to provide free advertising for that corporation.
Apparently kids don't change. These days kids like you are brainwashed by Microsoft of provide free advertising for them.
How is that working out for you? Do you feel more powerful because you have aligned yourself with a powerful corporation?